Food stamps; do you think one's purchases/taxes should be looked into?

In My Humble Opinion
201

I don’t understand why it would be any more acceptable to feed your kid nothing but junk if you’re paying for it yourself.

And it’s been discussed numerous times in the past how deciding on a fair, consistent, and rational basis what is and isn’t junk is impossible. Yes, you could pretty easily disallow a few categories like soda, but no, that wouldn’t do any good because there are plenty of other junk options to pick from. And food manufacturers would fight it to the death if their products were arbitrarily (and it would have to be arbitrary) declared junk.

202

It’s not a bad idea to institute a ban on some basic junk foods - cookies, chips, soda. Like I’ve said on the Dope before, there are a lot of things posing as good food but is really shit for you.

I’ve definitely fed my kid mac n cheese when that’s what we could afford. Not even the Kraft kind, either. I’m not even sure the multivitamin helped during those bad years. Right now I’m about to enter the ‘oh crap it’s summertime and we’re not going to have a lot of money as I’m an hourly-paid teacher’ thing. We went grocery shopping yesterday, skipping a lot of the fresh stuff and grabbing canned soups and frozen veggies. (Frozen veggies aren’t bad for you, btw, but I like cold food.)

Just because you can’t ban all junk food doesn’t mean you can’t ban the basics. Policy doesn’t have to be perfect to make it good policy.

Again - I think benefits should go up – in correlation with restricting cookies, chips, soda, etc. There’s really no reason for the government to buy those things. Of course major food companies (including the parent company of KFC and such) lobby for EBT cards to cover their junk.

It’s not that poor people don’t have the “right” to cookies. It’s just not a necessity.

Some of the opposition I heard when ‘stamps’ became EBT cards blew my mind. Really? You have an objection to EBT cards that reduce fraud?

203

So just because it’s hard means it shouldn’t be attempted at all?

Perhaps we should move to a cash-only system. No more food stamps (sorry, farmers). Cash only. And when it’s gone, it’s gone.

Of course that wouldn’t work because you’d have advocates lamenting food deserts and starving children. :smack:

204

For a teacher, I expect your reading comprehension skills to be much better than this. I haven’t defended anyone. I’ve only proposed alternative explanations for what may appear to be bad behavior. There is a difference.

Hell no, I don’t think it’s unrealistic. For fraudsters to be caught, you can’t dick around. It requires a certain level of intrusion. Like doing audits on EBT purchases and conducting surprise home visits. How could it not?

How would you propose stopping someone from purchasing steak and lobsters on an EBT card while driving around in a BMW? Apart from what the government does now. Seriously, I’m curious.

The government has a vested interest in feeding its poor people.

It has a duty to do this responsibly, both morally and economically. This means, unfortunately, accepting that it will never been perfect. If it aims to make services available to everyone, regardless of need, then it will quickly bankrupt itself. If it aims to limit services to only the top percentile of needy, then a lot of needy people will still suffer. There’s a burden associated with whatever direction the government leans.

Which would I rather have? A family disenrolled from SNAP because gasp! the parents made a dumb decision to buy a new TV? Or a family allowed to have both so that the family next door, with no new TV, doesn’t have to be subjected to an intrusive home visitation? I admit that I would judge a parent who bought a luxury item while on SNAP fairly harshly, but I don’t think a child should be punished for the sins of the parents. I don’t think an unwitting spouse needs to be punished either. Judging people CAN be fun, but ultimately it’s unproductive.

.

I don’t think being poor means you are deserving of belittling and condescending policy. If we want to change behavior, we should do so by encouraging what we want to see. This is not only more effective, but also more respectful.

What makes you think they don’t, Farmer Jane? When people say it’s hard to get SNAP benefits, do you think they are just talking out of their behinds?

205

Do you not see their point at all?

If a parent is bad enough to feed their kids junk food with their EBT card, what makes you think they’d be more responsible with cash that can be spent any and everywhere? At least the kids get SOMETHING when the benefits are limited to food.

206

No, because it’s *impossible *it shouldn’t be attempted at all.
There are other ways to try to improve people’s diets though, which I agree is important. I’m in favor of ones that are effective, cost-effective, and possible.

I also agree with your point that there are a lot of foods that are typically considered healthy or at least okay, that are more or less pure junk. What we really need is a fundamental change in the way a lot of people view food and nutrition.

Maybe so. There are certainly reasonable arguments in favor of that, and it seems to work well enough in other countries.

207

Here in California, the stores seem to have computers that sort out what can be charged on Food Stamps/EBT cards and what cannot. I’ve seen this at work and can attest that it does sort out what can be charged and what must be paid for out of pocket by the customer.

That said:

There is still a lot of myths that die hard, including the one that welfare recipients live in the lap of luxury, drive Cadillacs, and eat steak and lobster. A lot of people cling to their beliefs about this, however incorrect, because it helps them continue to justify their righteous indignation about the state of the nation, and also provides a convenient whipping boy for their anger.
The current economy has put a lot more Americans in the position where they need some type of public assistance. They too seem to be tarred with the same broad brush as the “traditional” inner city welfare recipient stereotype.
It seems to be part of the same trend to “bring down everyone to the same level of misery.” Public employees and union workers are lambasted for their “luxurious benefits and retirement plans” because ordinary workers are denied such things.
Instead of pushing for better benefits for all workers, some Americans would rather see all workers have minimal benefits, just like they have in their dead-end jobs.
This is pretty much all the result of years of media harping about myths that are, to a great degree, the result of deliberately misleading political ads and campaigns. Whatever core of truth there was, or is, about welfare abuse and misuse, is buried under all the hype, myth and outright lies being spread for political or economic benefit.
Just my 2 bits, your mileage may vary.

208

Starting to get into some Pit-esque (yes, I just made that word up right now) type of replies in here. Let’s stay away from that.

209

It’s done that way in the UK, certainly. First off, I think we need to move away from the idea that poor people will, as a matter of course, starve their children in order to buy plasma screen TVs and BMWs. In fact, most poor adults would starve themselves in order to feed their children, and I’m sure many are currently doing just that. So the question becomes one of how cumbersome and bureaucratic we’re prepared to make the system in order to prevent something that hardly ever happens.

Second, one of the aims of welfare type programs is, or should be, to help the recipients move off said programs and back into work. Will this goal be helped by pushing people further to the margins, making them feel like we own them because they’re dependent on public assistance? I mean, we’re basically telling them they’re shitty parents who need the state to tell them how to feed their children. And, having done that, we watch them as they line up at the grocery store, scrutinising the contents of their shopping carts and tut-tutting when we spot a Snickers bar or a pack of Twinkies.

Third, and related, giving cash helps people budget. That’s a learned skill to most people, and not one that comes intuitively to someone who has no money at all.

210

Ha, I did the exact same thing.

211

I think some of the differences between conversants here are due to cultural differences and personal issues. Our ideas about how we should appear to others are formed at an early age and sometimes not obvious to ourselves. Makes it hard to understand the “other side’s” opinions.

There are people who, when they are in need of help find it necessary, for self-esteem reasons, to appear to be thriving even when they aren’t. It is pretty difficult in this materialistic society to drive an old car or wear out-dated, or ragged clothing and not have some types of people look down their noses.

Others who have been born in poverty, may have been raised with little awareness of the social “meanings” of their poverty and not be bothered as much by the scorners. They may, in fact, put little value on what other’s think of them as long as they are happy and getting by.

I voted yes, the cases should be perused if only to determine that some aren’t getting more than their fair share at the expense of others who may need more but can’t get it because of the double dippers.

If everyone here were to be honest I would guess we all know people who misuse the system. In my line of work I ran into it frequently. Some people will talk about it quite openly.

That’s another cultural issue. Some people think they are letting other members of their group down if they acknowledge that there people in it who are less than honest. Others don’t see it that way. This value crosses all social boundaries, I think.

212

I think you will be hard pressed to find members of a culture who aren’t willing to admit that some members of their community are less than honest.

The thing is, different people are bothered by different things. There is no time or energy to be outraged about all the outrageous facts of the world with equal passion. For me, I feel like, if you are poor enough to need food stamps, then I won’t bother sweating you about the details of your purchases. Unless you are sending the kids to school hungry (which would bring protective services to your door) you aren’t registering on my outrage meter. I figure you probably have a few hustles that allow you to buy a pint of wine and a pack of cigarettes. I’m sure you don’t report to your case worker that your kid’s auntie bought him a nintendo DS or that you have begun dating a guy who lets you drive his cadillac sometimes, and yeah, you are less than honest for these choices, but for me, it doesn’t drown out the other crimes against humanity that would bother me first.

That is not to say that others don’t have a right to be outraged. I’ll leave them to it.

213

Depends on who’s listening, perhaps? There seem to be people on this thread who would silence any discussion of dishonesty rather than address it. Makes it difficult to have a discussion. Maybe the discussion can’t be had about haves and have-nots in this thread. I don’t know.

I’m not talking outrage here. But I am surprised that anyone wouldn’t agree with an attempt to stop some from taking too much so that others get less. Just seems like common sense to me. The degree may be minimal, who knows? But to each hungry child it could make a difference.

214

Hungry children doesn’t factor in as much as we all pretend. If a kid goes hungry in this nation, it isn’t due to welfare fraud, it’s due to raw neglect. In this country, one could spend every dime on crack and still feed the children every day.

215

Threads like this are always the same… someone charges in to express disdain and righteous outrage that THEIR hard earned money is going to subsidize someone else’s luxury. And here’s the funny thing, as I see it. I also worked as a cashier when I was younger. Never did I have the time to check what sort of cars my customers were driving. If one told me, who happened to be on government assistance, my first immediate thought wasn’t that they’d bought it while on government assistance. Never did I have anyone tell me they “deserved” anything.

Also, amazingly, it only took one time of wondering why someone struggling so might purchase, say, steak, to consider multiple possibilities. Perhaps that was the only steak they were having all your, specifically for a special occasion like a birthday. Maybe they’d just ended up on government assistance and still hadn’t figured out they couldn’t shop like they used to. Or just possibly, like one anecdote I heard, it was their last meal and thus didn’t matter anymore.

On to purchases like cigarettes or alcohol. Hmmm, that should be a tough one, right? Well, as has been previously suggested, there are the cases of shopping for other people. I mean, that also happens for people who aren’t on government assistance, right? But ruling that out, I very quickly decided I didn’t want to live in a world where anyone was so completely destitute that I didn’t want to allow them the ability to have something they enjoyed (needed?) if they paid with it out of their own pocket. Or had paid for them. Because hopeless despair doesn’t seem like a good motivation of anything other than more of the same.

Finally, I assumed folks were allowed to retain items they’d previously purchased before they found themselves needing help. This also included holding on to gifts or loans (like borrowing jewelry from a relative for Grandmama’s 95th birthday) whilst purchasing groceries.

Plus, that doesn’t cover the people who intentionally set out to piss off judgmental, nosy holier-than-thous. Just pull up in your friend’s Caddy, drape on your fur and flash some serious bling along with your government assistance. When folks are bitter, it’s amazing what they’ll do sometime to ‘get back’ (for lack of a better phrase) at those who have no business in their business.

To sum up as a consumer, taxpayer and unbelievably broke person, I couldn’t care less about how the person in front of me in line at Aldi’s or Walmart’s pays for their perishables. I’d be appalled to know that anyone checks to see what kind of plastic someone uses. Further, if said taxes goes to fund an illegal and nefarious lifestyle (for only two years in a row!) for a tiny percentage of the population while the others that need assistance get it, then I’m all for it. I’d rather resources be used to actually do the helping part versus the spending of any monies to do the regulating part.

I didn’t vote in the poll either, but I’m sure it’s obvious what my opinion is.

216

Exactly. No one here at least has ever denied that there are welfrauders out there.

For me, this is a problem that is just not on my radar. Maybe if I was visually assaulted by these people day in and day out, it would fray my nerves enough for me to be outraged. I don’t think I’m too “above it all” to be judgmental. If I saw someone wearing brand new Jordan’s and leaning out of a BMW on their way from picking up their EBT card, I’m sure my eyebrow would go up a little. But if I thought my eyebrows were good judges of sound social policy, I’d elect them to Congress. And then everyone, not just poor people trying to find a little sunshine, would be catching hell since my hateration is equal-opportunity.

217

And, all we’re hearing from several dopers on the other side, though you claim to support punishing wrongdoers, is that any attempt to make people “do right” is then equivalent to “making kids starve,” “hating poor people” and so on.

There are more right answers than just the very far ends of the spectrum.

Look, I don’t agree with Apples all or nothing approach any more than I agree with yours and Biiggirls all or nothing approach (that may not be how you see it, but that’s how you’re coming across), but having been on both sides I do understand the frustration when regular working folks see those on the system mysteriously, CONSISTENTLY, and luxuriously living way beyond their means. By the by…0.03 % (the “tiny insignificant amount” people keep throwing around above) of my taxes a year is $300.00. That may be insignificant to you, but it’s pretty significant to me, that could pay more than a few months of electricity, that could pay for 3 months of light rail trips into work. That could cover around 6 weeks of groceries…etc.

This is about more than just “but they had Luxury Item A before they went on welfare”. I know you were replying to Farmer Jane, and I realize that of course TPTB in the system aren’t going to be able to catch each cheater, but as I said before, it’s real obvious when someone is consistently living way beyond what welfare would allow. That, in and of itself, is a pretty damned good indicator of potential cheating.

This is a really good idea. I seem to remember reading about (maybe Chicago?) doing something similar back in the 90s. Actually paying cash rewards for each year a woman didn’t get pregnant. I don’t remember how successful it was, IIRC it didn’t last because there just wasn’t funding for it.

But your idea sounds much more fair, much more across the board for all recipients. That’s the sort of thing the program needs. That, but a LOT more.

218

Wait, what? Either your math is way off, or… I don’t know what. If you’re paying a million bucks in taxes a year, I’m kinda not seeing how $300 can be all l that significant to you. I sure wouldn’t be too fussed about it, if I had so much money that a mere percentage of it was already in the seven digit range.

That $300 is a lot more significant to someone making less than $20K a year.

(I’m fairly sure your math is off, but I don’t know what percentage you were going for, or what money amounts you’re really starting with.)

219

Isn’t this a proven fact of human psychology?(maybe even chimp psychology).

I seem to recall studies that showed participants two scenarios:

They receive $50, and their neighbor receives $50.

They receive $100,and their neighbor receives $500.

Guess which one most people chose, and which was more satisfying.:smack:

Human fucking nature again.

220

I call BS on this. How did you ‘see’ cigs on her checkout lane when in SLC there’s no place that will let anyone hold a pack of cigarettes before checking ID, let alone paying. And I’ve never seen $10 chilled salsa, MAYBE 5-6.